Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8   Go Down

Author Topic: New Britain Hypothesis  (Read 98515 times)

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #90 on: August 02, 2012, 03:27:28 PM »

... The possibility may exist that they were aware of violent weather conditions before the PONR and made the turn. 

We have no evidence of anyone broadcasting such weather predictions to the aircraft.

If they turned toward New Britain before the point of no return, their transmissions would not have steadily strengthened through the night, nor would they have broadcast that they were 200 miles out, 100 miles out, or that they "must be upon you" on the morning of July 2nd.
Read the posts on the "Point of No Return" thread, I have posted the computations and a chart showing where the PNR was based on several different sets of assumptions.

gl
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2960
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #91 on: August 02, 2012, 04:02:07 PM »

Read the posts on the "Point of No Return" thread, I have posted the computations and a chart showing where the PNR was based on several different sets of assumptions.

I have read the posts.

We agree.  You wrote: "We know that they did not turn around prior to the PNR because they continued on to the vicinity of Howland which is well past the PNR."
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #92 on: August 02, 2012, 05:24:32 PM »

... The possibility may exist that they were aware of violent weather conditions before the PONR and made the turn. 

We have no evidence of anyone broadcasting such weather predictions to the aircraft.

If they turned toward New Britain before the point of no return, their transmissions would not have steadily strengthened through the night, nor would they have broadcast that they were 200 miles out, 100 miles out, or that they "must be upon you" on the morning of July 2nd.
Read the posts on the "Point of No Return" thread, I have posted the computations and a chart showing where the PNR was based on several different sets of assumptions.

gl

Respectfully Gary - {and after reading many, many of your posts - that's a huge respect, BTW}

You can compute until next year but a good pilot can make his airplane do things that don't fit into computations at all.  But, frankly, I don't believe that Amelia was a "good" pilot. 

And, after 75 years of searching, commerce, new technology, etc., etc., etc. without coming up with definitive proof of her location - I believe she flat out got lost and went in deep. It's sooooooo easy not to believe your instruments.  She could have been flying upside down and not realized it.
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #93 on: August 03, 2012, 02:27:27 AM »


You can compute until next year but a good pilot can make his airplane do things that don't fit into computations at all.  But, frankly, I don't believe that Amelia was a "good" pilot.
Even Bob Hoover can't make a plane fly two thousand miles with only one hundred miles worth of fuel in the tanks. Once you go past the point of no return you're not returning.
Quote


And, after 75 years of searching, commerce, new technology, etc., etc., etc. without coming up with definitive proof of her location - I believe she flat out got lost and went in deep. It's sooooooo easy not to believe your instruments.  She could have been flying upside down and not realized it.
She last reported being at 1,000 feet which was below the clouds so she was not in IMC (instrument meteorologic conditions) so she didn't need to fly by use of the instruments, easy to keep the shiny side up with tthe ocean below you and clouds above you.

gl
« Last Edit: August 03, 2012, 04:45:30 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #94 on: August 12, 2012, 07:06:25 PM »

Malcolm, I was looking at some new information, new to me anyway, about Lockheed L10s in your area of the world. I discovered that there is one in the Museum of Technology and Transport in Auckland, New Zealand. I don't know where it has been, and maybe you know how to check, but its cn was 1095, reg. ZK-AFD.

I don't know for sure, but I think that the P&W R1340 and the R985 both used the same engine mount. I can see where someone could look at the number 1095 on a tag and mistake it for 1055 especially if the tag were in bad shape and a little hard to read. Could it be that this ship might have been in for maintenance somewhere and its engine mount was exchanged with one from another ship?

Just a thought, a longshot I'm sure, but it might explain the tag from New Britain.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #95 on: August 12, 2012, 09:48:44 PM »

Malcolm, I was looking at some new information, new to me anyway, about Lockheed L10s in your area of the world. I discovered that there is one in the Museum of Technology and Transport in Auckland, New Zealand. I don't know where it has been, and maybe you know how to check, but its cn was 1095, reg. ZK-AFD.

I don't know for sure, but I think that the P&W R1340 and the R985 both used the same engine mount. I can see where someone could look at the number 1095 on a tag and mistake it for 1055 especially if the tag were in bad shape and a little hard to read. Could it be that this ship might have been in for maintenance somewhere and its engine mount was exchanged with one from another ship?

Just a thought, a longshot I'm sure, but it might explain the tag from New Britain.

No idea. Although it is a bit of a leap I rather think. I am waiting to see if the team going there turns up wreckage.
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #96 on: August 13, 2012, 09:27:03 AM »

Any updates from them?
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #97 on: August 13, 2012, 10:33:24 AM »

There's an excellent chance of turning up aircraft wreckage in New Britain simply because so many aircraft were lost their during WW2, both allied and axis forces, plus the odd civilian plane or two  ;)
This must be the place
 
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #98 on: August 13, 2012, 12:17:30 PM »

I'm a little surprised that they have not yet been able to find the wreckage since they have the "wartime map used by the patrol". I would have thought that the location would have been marked on the map.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
« Last Edit: August 14, 2012, 07:13:08 AM by C.W. Herndon »
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #99 on: August 13, 2012, 12:31:11 PM »

I'm a little sruprised that they have not yet been able to find the wreckage since they have the "wartime map used by the patrol". I would have thought that the location would have been marked on the map.

Good point Woody. I would be surprised if the jungle and terrain had remained benign in all these years that have gone by. It probably looks a lot different now.
Maps of jungle are notoriously inaccurate as you probably have had experience of Woody.
Placing your estimated location onto an inaccurate map simply increases the inaccuraciies.
I do hope they have a bit more equipment with them this time, the 4 machetes and backpacks are not a lot of use on their own. A helicopter and associated detection equipment might be useful.
IMHO
This must be the place
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #100 on: August 13, 2012, 09:06:11 PM »


Maps of jungle are notoriously inaccurate ...

Having used maps of remote regions on archaeological survey work and been badly deceived by inaccuracies I found in my work that recent aerial photos were better. But that was in relatively open savannah country - wooded or jungle terrain is a very different kettle of fish, even with aerial pics.   
Logged

Vahe Demirjian

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #101 on: December 28, 2012, 09:27:45 AM »

Dave Billings said a while ago that he would conduct a new search in New Britain to find the aircraft wreckage reportedly seen by Corporal Angwin. As Billings has stated before, the consensus that AE and FN were 200 miles away from Howland Island "is based on the radio reception on that morning being “Strength 5″ and Bellart’s, the radioman on the USCG ITASCA, considered that because of this “S5″ value, the Electra was just about “right on top” of the ship. This is nonsense. “S5″ could be the reception from a transmitting station a thousand miles away. Even TIGHAR’s own radio gurus tell TIGHAR members that “S5″ does not mean she was close but even they are ignored." However, I would just reject Billings' criticism of the belief that AE really got close to Howland and stick to the assessment that AE didn't have enough fuel to make it to New Britain.

In one forgotten aspect of the New Britain hypothesis, Dave cites a radio message to support his belief that AE crashed in New Britain: "There is one radio call, which seemingly to other researchers, has no bearing on the matter.  This is a radio call made public by the author, Fred Goerner, who found the item tucked away in a US Navy file.  The call was made at 0030GMT and dated as 2nd July 1937.  The call was, “Land in sight ahead….” and was only heard by the Nauru Radio operator who said that the voice sounded the same as the voice he had heard the night previous.  The call time and date in the Eastern Hemisphere makes no sense as Earhart had departed Lae only one half hour before.  The US Navy, however, would date the call in the Western Hemisphere and 2nd July is 3rd July in the Eastern Hemisphere.  0030GMT on the 3rd July is around 11:00am local time on Nauru.  On my plot at that time, the Electra is within fifty miles of Banaba (Ocean) Island, on the way back." However, it's possible that this radio transmission was merely fraudulent because it was the only purported message that was picked up by the Nauru Radio Operator and a few people use this to support the belief that AE crashed her plane in the Marshall Islands.

Given the absence of any reports of civil aircraft crashing in New Britain before WW2 and the fact that no confirmed Model 10 Electras were lost in New Britain, it's possible that what Angwin saw in New Britain is merely a previously undiscovered bauxite mine in New Britain because I can find only one record of a plane that crashed in Papua New Guinea before WW2 (see http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Country=P2&lang=&page=2 for list), meaning that no civilian monoplane aircraft ever crashed in New Guinea before WW2.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5591
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #102 on: December 28, 2012, 11:14:41 AM »

In one forgotten aspect of the New Britain hypothesis, Dave cites a radio message to support his belief that AE crashed in New Britain: "There is one radio call, which seemingly to other researchers, has no bearing on the matter.  This is a radio call made public by the author, Fred Goerner, who found the item tucked away in a US Navy file.  The call was made at 0030GMT and dated as 2nd July 1937.  The call was, “Land in sight ahead….” and was only heard by the Nauru Radio operator who said that the voice sounded the same as the voice he had heard the night previous.

I discussed this at some length with Fred Goerner many years ago.  Fred said he saw the "Land in sight ahead.." message in Navy archives that were still classified at the time.  He was given permission to read the files but not make copies or take notes.  Later, after the files were declassified, he went back to make copies but couldn't find the message. Rather than conclude that his memory was faulty, like a good conspiracy theorist, he concluded that the government had removed the message from the file. 

Goerner probably simply misremembered the Nauru "Ship in sight ahead..." message.
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #103 on: January 11, 2013, 10:22:45 AM »

I'm guessing that Vahe had his entire Christmas break to ponder and then post "What about THIS?" questions?

Just an observation.

LTM, who takes the time to read,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Steve Lee

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • I am under moderation
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #104 on: May 21, 2013, 11:04:01 AM »

On another web site Dave Billings, who is the main proponent of the New Britan hypothesis,argues that a radio message was hear from Earhart saying 'Land in sight ahead'. Billings interprets this as meaning Earhart saw Nauru while returning to New Guinea. I think Billings is wrong, and that he is incorrectly the 'ship in sight ' quote from Earhart while flying towards Howland.

Can anybody tell me if I'm correct about this (and that Billing is incorrect)?.

I actually replied to Billings on the other site suggesting this misinterpretation on his part, but received no response.

« Last Edit: May 21, 2013, 11:05:38 AM by Steve Lee »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP